Please don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed your article. So much so that it forced me to think:) Ok, that said...

1. By linking intelligence directly to meaning-making and it to embodiment haven't you just created a perfect circular reasoning? I don't like the term intelligence and even worse, "general intelligence". Because what the f*** is it supposed to mean in the first place? Doesn't it just lead us into a senseless discussion? Missing the important:)

2. Meaning is linked to embodied experience, which is fine because that's simply what we are. I can't even imagine (or even want to imagine::) AI getting aroused watching porn. But embodiment is also a limiting trap. It reminds me a lot of Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, Edwin Abbott's brilliant booklet. With us humans running circles desperately trying to make wonderfully flawed "meanings" in the limiting 2D-dimensional perspective.

3. I'm a utilitarian... for me, AI is just a machine like any other tool. I have zero inclination to try to assign any type of "meaning" or God-like attributes (a typical human reflex to uncertainty) to what I basically see as just a bunch of wires. Machines are simply here to help. The more they can help me understand the world (create a useful mental map) beyond my embodied limitations the better. The further we all can journey into unknown new worlds.

That's where Twain Liu's criticism comes in rock hard (pun intended) The binary operating system Western AI is programmed in, is according to Lui, fundamentally limiting our potential perspective. I think Liu's really on to something valuable here.

Liu sadly seems to have vanished from the internet. Her long LinkedIn posts are all gone, all that is left are these >

https://qz.com/1515889/aristotles-binary-philosophies-created-todays-ai-bias and https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/daonatureculturesciencepdf/260326098